293

the saving passion of the Lord on our behalf was foretold, by one not knowing what he was saying. Therefore if the 20most sovereign20 of the essence is common to both, of the Father I mean and of the Son, what place is there for saying that 20the essences are different20 from each other? or how is a difference in them towards the more powerful and greater and more honorable observed, with the most sovereign essence admitting 3.2.87 no diminution? For that which exists imperfectly, whatever it may be, does not exist in a sovereign sense, not nature, not power, not dignity, nor anything else of those things considered individually, so that the superiority of the Father in essence, as the heresy wishes, proves the imperfection of the essence of the only-begotten. If therefore it is imperfect, it is not sovereign; but if it is 20most sovereign20, it is also completely perfect; for it is not in the nature of the deficient to be called perfect. But neither by comparatively setting perfect against perfect, is it possible to conceive of any difference arising from excess or defect; for the perfection in both is one, as if of a rule, neither being hollowed out by what is lacking nor being uneven 3.2.88 by what is in excess. The advocacy therefore of Eunomius for the dogma we hold can be clearly seen from what has been said, or rather, not his zeal for us, but his battle against himself. For by the things with which he supports our dogma with his own arguments, he turns his devices against himself. But let us again follow what has been written according to the very wording, so that it might be clear to all that except for the wish to do evil, their argument has no force for wickedness. 3.2.89 Let us hear, then, what was said: 20One might reasonably say that the essence most sovereign and first and only which subsisted by the energy of the Father receives unto itself the appellations of offspring and product and creature20. Who does not know that what separates the Church from the heresy is the word "creature" spoken of the Son? Therefore, with the difference in dogma being acknowledged by all, for one attempting to show that his own opinions are truer than ours, what was more reasonable to do: clearly, to construct his own argument, by whatever means were possible, proving that one ought to think the Lord is created, or, having omitted this, to legislate to his hearers to speak of disputed matters 3.2.90 as if they were agreed upon? I say the former; and perhaps also all, who have a share of intelligence, will seek this from their opponents, namely, that having first established the beginning of their argument on some indisputable basis, they should thus contend with the consequences. 3.2.91 This man, then, having abandoned the construction concerning the need to think him created, goes through what follows, fitting the sequence of his reasonings to his insubstantial premise, experiencing something like those who plunge their soul into vain desires, whether for a kingdom or for some other esteemed thing, being carried away by their thoughts; not contriving how any of their desired objects might come to be, but as if this were present they arrange for themselves and manage the seeming good fortune, through a certain pleasure wandering among non-existent things. 3.2.92 Thus for us also the wise prose-writer, having put his much-vaunted dialectic to sleep I know not where, before proving the point in question, tells fables as if to some children, setting forth this deceptive and unfounded nonsense of his own dogma like some drunken tale. 3.2.93 For he says that 20the essence that subsisted by the energy of the Father receives the appellation of offspring and product and creature20. What argument has proved that the Son subsisted by some constructive energy, but that the nature of the Father remained inactive with respect to the subsistence of the Son? For this was the disputed and questioned point, whether the essence of the Father begot the Son or whether something external accompanying the nature 3.2.94 produced him. Since, then, the Church, according to the divine teaching, believes that the Only-begotten is truly God, and abominates the superstition of <the> polytheism and for this reason does not accept a difference of natures, so that not by the variation

293

σωτήριον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τοῦ κυρίου πάθος προηγόρευτο, οὐκ εἰδότος ὃ λέγει. οὐκοῦν εἰ κοινὸν ἐπ' ἀμφοτέρων τῆς οὐσίας τὸ 20κυριώτατον20, τοῦ πατρὸς λέγω καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, τίνα χώραν ἔχει τὸ 20παρηλ λάχθαι τὰς οὐσίας20 ἀλλήλων λέγειν; ἢ πῶς ἐν αὐταῖς ἡ πρὸς τὸ δυνατώτερόν τε καὶ μεῖζον καὶ προτιμότερον ἐν θεωρεῖται διαφορά, τῆς κυριωτάτης οὐσίας οὐδεμίαν παρα 3.2.87 δεχομένης ἐλάττωσιν; τὸ γὰρ ἀτελῶς ὄν, ὅτι περ ἂν ᾖ, κυρίως οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐ φύσις, οὐ δύναμις, οὐκ ἀξίωμα, οὐκ ἄλλο τι τῶν καθ' ἕκαστον θεωρουμένων οὐδέν, ὥστε ἡ κατ' οὐσίαν τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπεροχή, καθὼς ἡ αἵρεσις βούλεται, τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ μονογενοῦς διελέγχει. εἰ οὖν ἀτελής, οὐ κυρία· εἰ δὲ 20κυριωτάτη20, καὶ τελεία πάντως· τέλειον γὰρ τὸ ἐλλιπὲς ὀνομάζεσθαι φύσιν οὐκ ἔχει. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ συγκριτικῶς ἀντιπαρατιθεμένου τελείου πρὸς τέλειον, δια φοράν τινα κατὰ πλεονασμὸν ἢ ἔλλειψιν γινομένην δυνατόν ἐστιν ἐπινοῆσαι· μία γὰρ ἐπ' ἀμφοῖν ὥσπερ ἐπὶ κανόνος ἡ τελειότης, οὔτε κοιλαινομένη τῷ λείποντι οὔτε ἀνωμαλοῦσα 3.2.88 τῷ πλεονάζοντι. τὴν μὲν οὖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ καθ' ἡμᾶς δόγ ματος τοῦ Εὐνομίου συνηγορίαν ἱκανῶς ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ἔστιν ἰδεῖν, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐ τὴν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν σπουδήν, ἀλλὰ τὴν πρὸς ἑαυτὸν μάχην. δι' ὧν γὰρ τὸ ἡμέτερον δόγμα τοῖς ἰδίοις συνίστησι λόγοις, καθ' ἑαυτοῦ τρέπει τὰ μηχα νήματα. ἡμεῖς δὲ πάλιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις κατ' αὐτὴν τὴν λέξιν ἀκολουθήσωμεν, ὡς ἂν φανερὸν γένοιτο πᾶσιν ὅτι πλὴν τοῦ βούλεσθαι κακουργεῖν οὐδεμίαν ἰσχὺν πρὸς τὴν κακίαν ὁ παρ' αὐτῶν λόγος ἔχει. 3.2.89 Ἀκούσωμεν τοίνυν τῶν εἰρημένων· 20εἰκότως φαίη τις ἂν τὴν κυριωτάτην καὶ πρώτην καὶ μόνην ἐνεργείᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστᾶσαν οὐσίαν εἰς ἑαυτὴν δέχεσθαι τὰς τοῦ γεννήματος καὶ ποιήματος καὶ κτίσματος προσηγορίας20. τίς οὐκ οἶδεν ὅτι τὸ χωρίζον ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἡ τοῦ κτίσματός ἐστι φωνὴ ἐπὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λεγομένη; οὐκοῦν ὁμολογουμένης παρὰ πᾶσι τῆς κατὰ τὸ δόγμα διαφορᾶς, τὸν ἐπιχειροῦντα δεικνύειν τῶν ἡμετέρων τὰς ἰδίας ὑπο λήψεις ἀληθεστέρας τί πράττειν εὐλογώτερον ἦν, κατα σκευάζειν δηλονότι τὸν ἴδιον λόγον, δι' ὧν οἷόν τε ἦν, ἀπο δεικνύντα κτιστὸν τὸν κύριον εἶναι δεῖν οἴεσθαι, ἢ τοῦτον παρέντα νομοθετεῖν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ὡς ὁμολογούμενα τὰ 3.2.90 ἀμφιβαλλόμενα λέγειν; ἐγὼ μὲν ἐκεῖνό φημι· τάχα δὲ καὶ πάντες, οἷς μέτεστι διανοίας, τοῦτο παρὰ τῶν ἀντιλεγόντων ἐπιζητήσουσι, τὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ λόγου πρῶτον ἐπί τινος ἀναντιρρήτου βάσεως στήσαντας οὕτω τοῖς ἀκολούθοις ἐνα 3.2.91 γωνίζεσθαι. οὑτοσὶ τοίνυν ἀφεὶς τὴν περὶ τοῦ χρῆναι κτι στὸν αὐτὸν οἴεσθαι κατασκευὴν τὰ ἐφεξῆς διεξέρχεται, τῷ ἀνυποστάτῳ λήμματι τὴν τῶν λογισμῶν ἀκολουθίαν ἁρμό ζων, οἷόν τι πάσχουσιν οἱ ταῖς ματαίαις ἐπιθυμίαις κατὰ ψυχὴν ἐμβαθύνοντες, ἢ πρὸς βασιλείαν ἢ πρὸς ἄλλο τι τῶν σπουδαζομένων ταῖς ἐννοίαις διαχεόμενοι· οὐχ ὅπως ἂν γένοιτό τι τῶν σπουδαζομένων αὐτοῖς ἐπινοοῦσιν, ἀλλ' ὡς τούτου παρόντος διατιθέασιν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ οἰκονομοῦσι πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν τὸ εὐτύχημα, διά τινος ἡδονῆς τοῖς ἀνυπ 3.2.92 άρκτοις ἐπιπλανώμενοι. οὕτως ἡμῖν καὶ ὁ σοφὸς λογο γράφος τὴν πολυθρύλητον ἑαυτοῦ διαλεκτικὴν οὐκ οἶδα ὅπου κατακοιμίσας, πρὶν ἀποδεῖξαι περὶ τοῦ ζητουμένου, καθάπερ τισὶ παιδίοις διαμυθολογεῖται τὴν ἀπατηλὴν ταύ την καὶ ἀκατάσκευον τοῦ καθ' ἑαυτὸν δόγματος φλυαρίαν οἷον διήγημά τι παροίνιον ἐκτιθέμενος. 3.2.93 Λέγει γὰρ 20τὴν ἐνεργείᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπο στᾶσαν οὐσίαν δέχεσθαι τὴν τοῦ γεννήματος καὶ ποιήματος καὶ κτίσματος προσηγορίαν20. τίς ἀπέδειξε λόγος ἐνεργείᾳ τινὶ κατασκευαστικῇ τὸν υἱὸν ὑποστῆναι, τὴν δὲ φύσιν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀνενέργητον ὡς πρὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ υἱοῦ μεῖναι; τὸ γὰρ ἀμφιβαλλόμενόν τε καὶ ζητούμενον τοῦτο ἦν, εἴτε ἡ οὐσία τοῦ πατρὸς ἐγέν νησε τὸν υἱὸν εἴτε τι τῶν ἔξωθεν παρεπομένων τῇ φύσει 3.2.94 τοῦτον εἰργάσατο. τῆς τοίνυν ἐκκλησίας κατὰ τὴν θείαν διδασκαλίαν ἀληθῶς θεὸν εἶναι τὸν μονογενῆ πιστευούσης, τὴν δὲ <τῆς> πολυθεΐας δεισιδαιμονίαν βδελυσσομένης καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν τῶν φύσεων διαφορὰν οὐ προσδεχομένης, ὡς ἂν μὴ τῇ παραλλαγῇ